Solipsism, this will be one of those rare times when I've got to ask you:

What the hell are you talking about? ???:

Ill try to use small words.

Yesterday: Skype wasnt bought by MS yet it wasnt deemed a killer of FaceTime on iDevices.
Today: Skype is bought by MS and you claim its now going to kill FaceTime on iDevices.

Yesterday: FaceTime was tied outside Apples ecosystem with the promise of it being made open.
Today: FaceTime is tied to Apples ecosystem but because MS bought Skyep you deem it impossible to be made open.

No matter you slice it FaceTime is still the same tool with the same limitations and same potential that it had yesterday.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Yesterday: Skype wasn’t bought by MS yet it wasn’t deemed a killer of FaceTime on iDevices.
Today: Skype is bought by MS and you claim it’s now going to kill FaceTime on iDevices.

Yesterday: FaceTime was tied outside Apple’s ecosystem with the promise of it being made open.
Today: FaceTime is tied to Apple’s ecosystem but because MS bought Skyep you deem it impossible to be made open.

No matter you slice it FaceTime is still the same tool with the same limitations and same potential that it had yesterday.

And what about your open-source question that I queried you on? Did you change the subject because you didn't have a good response to the one I posted?

I didn't reply to any question from you about about the why's and what-nots of the Skype purchase. You implied that FaceTime should be considered open-source. I answered why it is not.

But just to make you happy, suppose I have a gun for sale. Big deal, right? If I sell it to an elderly grandmother in Hoboken, no matter to you. But if I sell it to your lifelong enemy who wished in his heart of hearts that you no longer existed, that might be just a tad more concerning to you.

But I'm sure you'd argue no, so it's of little real consequence. Others will understand the why the buyer makes a difference in the result.

really after seeing the pros and cons of this purchase i thought who does it really benefit
with all the above limitations it benefits not the consumer as much as
ballmer...he is desperately trying to sell his own worth and relevance after MS stock has done nothing but stagnate for the last 10+ years. he is trying to rescue his mess

now he can say "see what i have done, adding value for the future of mobile" ," you need me to make this huge investment matter, it will take time.....my time"

You claim that because FaceTime isn’t open source yet that it’ll be killed by Skype. I queried why it can’t be made open source today or tomorrow and for some reason must now remain closed for ever and ever and ever, and why this is any different from yesterday? You didn’t even begin to answer that.

I also asked what has changed since MS’ acquisition to kill FaceTime on iDevices. You also didn’t answer that question.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

Yes, potential is the word of the day. If MS is smart they will leave Skype as is and just add new features. No need to alienate the core users.

The only real benefit is Windows-based intercession without alienating other Ventura of revenue, but they couldn't have made this in-house for less than $8.5 billion dollars. I thought eBay paid too much for it abd this just seems worse. I'm inclined to think Ballmer is was given a Monty Brewter deal to spend all of MS' money within a set time frame¡

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.

It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.

Good points.

Microsoft has it's fingers in a LOT of different pies right now -- it sure does seem like they did this as a defensive move. Many people don't know that they ALSO have a video and IM chatting application -- or at least forgot. It was $8 a month and pretty crappy, though it had a really cool "surround video" device that could track speakers. The video conference was accessed by a pop-up on a menu-bar (so once again, they shot and killed any interface designers before coding began).

>> Microsoft is paying for concerts to launch their apps -- and they can afford a few million to do it. But the "hip and cool" label they want isn't paying dividends. And Skype -- while it is almost the Backbone of the fledgling videoconferencing market -- is another LOSS LEADER.

Microsoft cannot keep doing business as a defensive move. They have to make profits on things at some point, and they cannot seem to DESIGN anything that anyone wants -- they merely acquire other people's designs and integrate them. The LAST cool thing they acquired is the Kinect.

Will Microsoft be tempted to embed Skype into Office, or "make it better" when it plays with their servers, applications and OS? When they "Embrace and Extend" -- will it make Skype suck?

Skype will dominate for now, while it is mostly free. But then the NEXT wave of videoconferencing will probably be from FaceBook -- which it is basically THEIRS TO LOSE. They don't even have a videoconferencing application out. But whichever the choose -- will be the winner (as long as it doesn't suck).

>> So Microsoft bought a decent Videoconferencing platform, so that Google (and others) couldn't. It won't make them money, because they will eventually be 2nd fiddle to whatever FaceBook does -- and Google will be trying their best to be #2 in Social Media -- and will ALSO be forcing Microsoft into "Free" videoconferencing.

While BING all but bleeds them dry.

>> Maybe Microsoft had to buy Skype to keep Google from getting it - but it's a painful wound on their profits, and another sign that they cannot DEVELOP new markets by themselves.

I think it was a great move by MSFT but Apple needs to move more quickly and aggressively. They are suffering from being too big. FaceTime really isn't sh*T right now and if Apple doesn't move quickly decisively and aggressively it will always be a niche product. How about opening FaceTime up for starters? These companies need to just open the stuff up they plan to rather than talking about it. I don't want to hear about open until they are announcing that they've already done it.

When I heard this I was sad. I've promised myself that I wouldn't purchase anything from Microsoft ever again. I'm a regular Skype user and now I'll be sending money to Microsoft for my long distance communication with others.

Does this mean that the automated voice used for test calls will become an American voice?

When I got my Mac I was eager to use iChat. I've had it for over three years and haven't used it once. Nobody I regularly communicate with uses a Mac. Since I have Skype I just use it. There was no difficult set-up at all. I pay $2.95 per month for long distance service with Skype. It doesn't work well calling land lines all the time. It's hit and miss. Skype to Skype always sounds good.

I too have had difficulty using Skype to call in to conferences. Skype doesn't do touch tones very well for some reason.

Remember Vonage? They charged almost as much as regular phone companies to give the same service as Skype. Don't get a magicjack. I couldn't get mine to work more than a few times. overall I probably spent $2/minute for all the successful calls I made with it.

I wish Facetime could be a great competitor to all the other long distance services but it won't be. If Apple can't allow it to work on Tiger and Leopard 10.5.8, what makes you think they will ever make it work on Microsoft machines?

People just aren't thinking through this. Let's examine a simple thought process:

I have an iPhone4. I want to talk to my friend abroad.

Does my friend have an iPhone4, 5, 6, iMac, MacBook etc?

[ if yes, use FaceTime,

if no, use Skype }

It doesn't matter how well Skype does or how cancerous Microsoft can make it; two iPhone4 users will never opt to load up an app to talk when they can just call each other using FaceTime without having to arrange a time, worry about updates etc. etc. You can call your friend just like making a phone call.

Even if MS incorporates this functionality into WP7, it still won't make two iPhone4 users opt to use Skype over FaceTime. At worst, Skype will be a must-have app on the iPhone, but isn't it already? And does that impact in any negative way on us iPhone users?

Whatever happens, MS has such a terrible reputation from recent debacles that nobody is thinking Skype will be improved by this. Pat on the back for whoever brokered this deal for the seller, stupid sum of money!

You claim that because FaceTime isnt open source yet that itll be killed by Skype. I queried why it cant be made open source today or tomorrow and for some reason must now remain closed for ever and ever and ever, and why this is any different from yesterday? You didnt even begin to answer that.

I also asked what has changed since MS acquisition to kill FaceTime on iDevices. You also didnt answer that question.

Hmmm. . . I don't think your original question was quite as clear as you apparently think it was. I didn't (and don't) read it the way you claim to have intended. So we're simply arguing semantics I guess. Nothing more to discuss on that subject then.

I did try to explain why the purchaser makes a difference. That might not have been as clear as I intended either since you didn't get it.

I understood Apple's original plan was expecting FaceTime to become the industry standard. Apple would have had much more influence with FaceTime over an independent Skype who had an interesting product but limited sesources to continue development quickly and effectively. Now with MS in the mix, Skype rolled into the OS itself in all likelihood and pre-installed on every Win7 (and Win8\) mobile device, the chances of Facetime calling the shots and leading the way went from 50/50 to slim IMHO.

There's your difference. Apple users will still have FaceTime to play with amongst themselves. Unless they have a Windows version ready to roll, I don't see any chance of it being considered a serious application going forward, even by many Apple fans.

I have been using Skype on iPhone for quite a while and I can tell you it is really poor quality. It drops calls in two minutes or less every time even when I am right next to the WiFi. When someone calls you it always goes to voice mail and never rings on the phone. You cannot copy and paste phone numbers into the dialer and it sucks the battery like no tomorrow. So it is not really a viable app on iOS anyway. Pity because if it worked right I would use it all the time. I have a paid phone number and everything but truly disappointed in the performance on iOS but it works reasonably well on OS X.

Hmmm. . . I don't think your original question was quite as clear as you apparently think it was. I didn't (and don't) read it the way you claim to have intended. So we're simply arguing semantics I guess. Nothing more to discuss on that subject then.

I did try to explain why the purchaser makes a difference. That might not have been as clear as I intended either since you didn't get it.

I understood Apple's original plan was expecting FaceTime to become the industry standard. Apple would have had much more influence with FaceTime over an independent Skype who had an interesting product but limited sesources to continue development quickly and effectively. Now with MS in the mix, Skype rolled into the OS itself in all likelihood and pre-installed on every Win7 (and Win8\) mobile device, the chances of Facetime calling the shots and leading the way went from 50/50 to slim IMHO.

There's your difference. Apple users will still have FaceTime to play with amongst themselves. Unless they have a Windows version ready to roll, I don't see any chance of it being considered a serious application going forward, even by many Apple fans.

Well, I understand what your saying... Microsoft has the bucks and marketing power to really push Skype to be defacto and even copy what Apple does (even more than today )than if they were not puchased.
And its pretty clear... so far... Apple has NOT put facetime into open standards(as stated they would do) or other platforms etc... so far. Could they? sure, and they could also fund a moon shot, but IMO doubt that they will. As for Sol... when it comes to 'value' judgement's or future predictions best just let it go (to each his own right). But for tech stuff (how it works etc), he's usually right on.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster by your side, kid.

Facebook was looking for a video component, if MS manages to force them onto Skype then FaceTime is in trouble. If Facebook on the other hand started using FaceTime, Skype would quickly become a seniors-only Windows-only affair.

Also, Apple hasn't released anything for non-Apple platforms, but they indicated they were going to. If there is a FaceTime for Windows then the battle is truly on and I like FaceTime's chances.

One can only dream. Facetime was DOA. Way to many restrictions out of the gate.

Yesterday: Skype wasnt bought by MS yet it wasnt deemed a killer of FaceTime on iDevices.
Today: Skype is bought by MS and you claim its now going to kill FaceTime on iDevices.

Yesterday: FaceTime was tied outside Apples ecosystem with the promise of it being made open.
Today: FaceTime is tied to Apples ecosystem but because MS bought Skyep you deem it impossible to be made open.

No matter you slice it FaceTime is still the same tool with the same limitations and same potential that it had yesterday.

Skype lost $7m on $860m in revenues. The talk of Skype being a money-losing company, while technically true, seems highly exaggerated. Mix in some of Microsoft's excess infrastructure and Bing's existing ad engine, and even the biggest moron at Microsoft could make it "profitable" within a year.

This deal is about selling ads, not adding "features" to Windows. They bought 107 million users per month, along with a fairly useful service that should help keep those users sticking around. Integrate Skype as a standard feature in Windows computers and Nokia phones, and you should be able to add even more users. It may not make Skype the industry standard, but it should make it as easy and accessible as Facetime on an Apple product -- except with a real, revenue-producing user base and true cross-platform compatibility.

Microsoft wants "eyes" from any platform possible, so it seems ridiculous to suggest that they will kill cross-platform compatibility. They may even have the resources to push out Skype for iPad, which one would think should have been out on launch day.

Apple makes money selling hardware. Unless they sell a revolutionary $150 aluminum USB ultra-HD+ magical proprietary camera, why would Apple open Facetime to other devices and platforms? They've never made iTunes open to other audio/video devices, and iTunes actually has separate revenue potential from iTunes store sales.

Hmmm. . . I don't think your original question was quite as clear as you apparently think it was. I didn't (and don't) read it the way you claim to have intended. So we're simply arguing semantics I guess. Nothing more to discuss on that subject then.

I did try to explain why the purchaser makes a difference. That might not have been as clear as I intended either since you didn't get it.

I understood Apple's original plan was expecting FaceTime to become the industry standard. Apple would have had much more influence with FaceTime over an independent Skype who had an interesting product but limited sesources to continue development quickly and effectively. Now with MS in the mix, Skype rolled into the OS itself in all likelihood and pre-installed on every Win7 (and Win8\) mobile device, the chances of Facetime calling the shots and leading the way went from 50/50 to slim IMHO.

There's your difference. Apple users will still have FaceTime to play with amongst themselves. Unless they have a Windows version ready to roll, I don't see any chance of it being considered a serious application going forward, even by many Apple fans.

I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.

It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.

Actually, it's much worse (or better, if you were Silverlake). I think eBay dumped Skype for either $1.2B or $1.4B, way less than they paid for it. Took a huge write-off too.

Yesterday: Skype wasnt bought by MS yet it wasnt deemed a killer of FaceTime on iDevices.
Today: Skype is bought by MS and you claim its now going to kill FaceTime on iDevices.

Yesterday: FaceTime was tied outside Apples ecosystem with the promise of it being made open.
Today: FaceTime is tied to Apples ecosystem but because MS bought Skyep you deem it impossible to be made open.

No matter you slice it FaceTime is still the same tool with the same limitations and same potential that it had yesterday.

Editors, and I use the term loosely, why is Facetime called a standard when no one but apple uses it? it is no more a standard than Memory Stick or a-trac, or Apple Lossless codecs...it works on one vendors products, and only their products, it is their platform, not a standard. Skype is also not a standard, only Skype clients work with it IIRC.

HTTP, tcp/ip, MP3, MP4 are examples of standards.

You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.

Editors, and I use the term loosely, why is Facetime called a standard when no one but apple uses it? it is no more a standard than Memory Stick or a-trac, or Apple Lossless codecs...it works on one vendors products, and only their products, it is their platform, not a standard. Skype is also not a standard, only Skype clients work with it IIRC.

HTTP, tcp/ip, MP3, MP4 are examples of standards.

SJ said Apple was going to work to make it open, and work with organizations that create standards.

Facetime is is less than a year old at this point (compared to the 7 or 8 years that Skype has been around), so perhaps you need to be a little patient.

Facebook was looking for a video component, if MS manages to force them onto Skype then FaceTime is in trouble. If Facebook on the other hand started using FaceTime, Skype would quickly become a seniors-only Windows-only affair.

Also, Apple hasn't released anything for non-Apple platforms, but they indicated they were going to. If there is a FaceTime for Windows then the battle is truly on and I like FaceTime's chances.

I so want Apple to release FaceTime for Windows.

My fiancee lives over 200KMs away and every night we are on Skype. The problem is that Skype is just such a poor service with communication problems regularly.

At one stage we were getting cut off every five minutes and ended up using GTalk which was not much better.

Things got a bit better when I hooked my Airport Extreme to dad's but it still drops connection inexplicably. And that's just with voice, it's immensely worse with video.

I'm still trying to figure this deal out. eBay unloads Skype for a mere $2.75b after paying $2.5b for it and not two years later, Microsoft pays $8.5b for it? Seriously? I mean, the AI article speaks of their improved business model but is it enough to more than triple their valuation? We all know that Microsoft is good for the cash, but I can't help think that they ended up in a bidding war with Facebook and Google and wound up overpaying.

It's also an interesting play for them in terms of cell-phone carriers. They never liked Skype anyway and now Microsoft, the maker of a major phone platform owns them. Maybe Microsoft considers having Skype will be a good negotiation tactic but regardless, things get bumpy from here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

Actually, it's much worse (or better, if you were Silverlake). I think eBay dumped Skype for either $1.2B or $1.4B, way less than they paid for it. Took a huge write-off too.

Sevenfeet was right: eBay did sell Skype for $2.75B (not $1.2B or $1.4B as I had suggested).

After reading that document it looks like Skype should fit in nicely with Windows. It has been speculated that the original programmers of the Windows source code, who have since left the company, did so without actually explaining or documenting large parts of the low level functions and now no one at Microsoft actually understands exactly how it works. Looks like Skype may have the same problem, especially if key people leave during the transition. They certainly went to great lengths to obfuscate the source code.

The conversation I was having was on 'standards,' not whether it is open, it case you missed it.

I actually read what you wrote.

Again the question is, why not make it open before getting everyone's hopes up? If you don't promise anything than no one will expect it. Apple needs to do a better job with expectations as it relates to openness and standards. Making something open goes a long way in making it a standard.